Lane saves the day
Added 1/18/2010
*formatted edition*
The translation of an outrageous burlesque-style movie with music about a Broadway musical to a real Broadway musical to a movie musical can't be easy, though Nathan Lane is superb throughout; Will Ferrell has alot of strong scenes as the author of "Springtime For Hitler"; the art direction is excellent; and the script has intelligence, for the most part successfully adapting legendary dialogue.
Lane's partner, the usual dependable Matthew Broderick, is surprisingly amateurish, though he sings well. He doesn't seem to believe in the role, coming off like a community college theatre hack.
Most songs are pretty good; some are meaningless and should have been cut.
The difficulty is that lovers of the '68 will not love a version that is not perfect. On the other hand, such fans may enjoy hearing classic lines repeated.
Final scenes are superfluous.
[Brooks fans will enjoy hearing his voice on a production number and a great line from "High Anxiety"].
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I didn't want to like this film....
Added 12/6/2009
...because the original Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder version was so great. I really thought this version would be a let down.
But after around 5 minutes of watching it, it became apparent that this wasn't a remake of the classic masterpiece. It was an entirely new film based on the same general script. And I was shocked to find that in a few ways, this version was better than the original. This really isn't a remake of the film, it's a film version of the Broadway musical.
First of all, the movie really is funny. And it was well acted too, despite the fact that the cast wasn't as good as the 1968 cast. But Nathan Lane, Mathew Broderick, Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman were still very good. It just may be that Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder were hard to top, or once you saw that version first, anyone else wouldn't compare to them.
The dance numbers were excellent. I'm really not a fan of musicals, but this one was good. The production was extremely well done, and it moved well enough that I didn't even realize it was a two hour film!
The bottom line is that the 1968 version was a comedy classic. Perhaps Mel Brookes very best comedy film. But this new version is also a very, very funny film, but it's a different film. This is really a musical comedy with elaborate singing and dancing. And I felt it was carried off beautifully.
I think the people who hated this movie made the mistake of comparing it directly with the classic 1968 version, and naturally they found it lacking. I think you have to judge this as a separate film. And when you do that, it's quite a good musical comedy.
I didn't want to like this movie, but I ended up loving it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
An absolute riot! I laughed the whole way through. Will Ferrell is at his comedic best in this. The music numbers are well choreographed and sung, overall a really fun film. This movie always brings a smile to my face.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
THIS MOVIE should have closed on page four
Added 8/24/2009
There is an obvious urge when reviewing this movie to compare it to the earlier version, but this is unfair. This movie is not a "remake" as such, but a different presentation of the basic story. It needs to be reviewed on its own lack of merit.
I simply cannot believe that this treatment was a hit on Broadway and received numerous awards, but people have told me that the theatre version was much better.
Don't mistake though, this movie is awful, and for a multitude of reasons. I watched it to the very end, mostly out of curiosity and hoping it would get better. It never did.
The acting is either over the top, or wooden. Matthew Broderick is particularly bad, there's no life in his character- and Nathan Lane seems to be unable to make up his mind between taking the part of Max for his own or doing a lousy imitation of Zero Mostel. Uma Thurman was a questionable choice for Ulla. Her accent is inconsistent, she towers over her co-stars- neither of which are tall men, and when you boil it down, she is somewhat gangley and strange looking. Don't even get me started on how bad Will Ferrell is. His take on Franz is pathetic. He tries to give his character the wild-eyed fanaticism that it requires, but you get the overall impression that he's just camping it up and actually making fun of it. He's no Kenneth Mars. The sequence on the roof where Max and Leo have him sign the contract- one of the funniest parts of the original movie- is probably the worst part of this one.
The supporting cast is lousy too. The character of "Carmen Ghia" comes to mind. Originally the effeminate partner of Roger Debris, he comes off as a drill sergeant in a lousy haircut and tight clothes.
Even the jokes that were lifted from the original movie have been stepped on or rearranged to where they aren't funny. I think I may have laughed twice during the whole movie, and that was at the goofy show posters in Max's office.
This movie is also a rather strange "musical." When I saw "Chicago" for the first time, I found myself humming the tunes. I cannot recall one from this movie.
I also have many problems with the needless revisions in the original plot.
Everyone who watched the original movie knew that Max "went right" when he selected LSD as his Hitler. His portrayal of Hitler was hilarious, and Franz Liebkind's reaction to it convinced the audience that the play was a comedy. However, LSD is absent from this movie. The Hitler part goes- eventually- to Debris! There is nothing really funny about the Hitler portrayed by him, or his material. Actually, it's somewhat boring. How did people interpret this to be comedic?
Having Leo married and off to Rio with Ulla did nothing either. Apparently it was just another device to work more unmemorable music into the movie.
Finally, there is the length of this thing- OVER TWO HOURS! It's a marathon. In the original movie they blew up the theatre. They should have done it here too- and much sooner.
However, I didn't hate the whole thing- the "pearl" girls were quite attractive. I've watched their dance sequence several times- with the sound off.
This movie was a box office flop, disappearing from theatres and going to DVD almost instantly. I wonder how much money Mel Brooks managed to raise to produce it?
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Where did we go....right?
Added 8/23/2009
The answer is, not many places. The film of the musical of the original movie brings back a bunch of the stage's stars, notably Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, to try and recapture what brought Broadway ticket holders out in droves. However, this looks like the old fashioned musical-to-film style where the movie often looks like the stage play simply acted out for the cameras. Mel Brooks even inserts a joke about it at one point, when Uma Thurman coos to Broderick, "Why did you move away from me stage left?"
Which is what ultimately makes "The Producers" an average movie. Everything is played out as broadly as possible and the opening sequence is so shrilly overbearing as to almost put you off the rest of the film. Patience is rewarded by some of Brooks' trademark humor and sight-gags, with the old-lady walker dance enough to give the movie a boost in the ratings. Then there's the ultimate; the hideous play the two decide to use for the scam; "Springtime For Hitler." Given that this ruse was pivotal to the original Producers, it's virtually intact from the first. naturally, it's also the film's highlight.
Even with that classic set piece, "The Producers" fails to catch fire. The bits are strung out and uneven, and never meet the heights of the original. Matthew Broderick in particular seems out of his league here, playing Leo as a wooden nebbish, while Nathan Lane channels Zero Mostel adequately. Will Ferrell is his usual mad-manboy self, which is good, and Gary Beach is an outrage as the flamboyant director DeBris, who takes the role of Hitler...and wrecks Leo and Max's plans. Even with all this going for it, "The Producers" can't seem to maintain the timing it needs to be a flat out success. For Mel Brooks fans only, with a few musical buffs that might life to see the skewer Brooks and the cast drive into the heart of the great white way.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Lane saves the day
Added 1/18/2010
*formatted edition*
The translation of an outrageous burlesque-style movie with music about a Broadway musical to a real Broadway musical to a movie musical can't be easy, though Nathan Lane is superb throughout; Will Ferrell has alot of strong scenes as the author of "Springtime For Hitler"; the art direction is excellent; and the script has intelligence, for the most part successfully adapting legendary dialogue.
Lane's partner, the usual dependable Matthew Broderick, is surprisingly amateurish, though he sings well. He doesn't seem to believe in the role, coming off like a community college theatre hack.
Most songs are pretty good; some are meaningless and should have been cut.
The difficulty is that lovers of the '68 will not love a version that is not perfect. On the other hand, such fans may enjoy hearing classic lines repeated.
Final scenes are superfluous.
[Brooks fans will enjoy hearing his voice on a production number and a great line from "High Anxiety"].
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I didn't want to like this film....
Added 12/6/2009
...because the original Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder version was so great. I really thought this version would be a let down.
But after around 5 minutes of watching it, it became apparent that this wasn't a remake of the classic masterpiece. It was an entirely new film based on the same general script. And I was shocked to find that in a few ways, this version was better than the original. This really isn't a remake of the film, it's a film version of the Broadway musical.
First of all, the movie really is funny. And it was well acted too, despite the fact that the cast wasn't as good as the 1968 cast. But Nathan Lane, Mathew Broderick, Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman were still very good. It just may be that Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder were hard to top, or once you saw that version first, anyone else wouldn't compare to them.
The dance numbers were excellent. I'm really not a fan of musicals, but this one was good. The production was extremely well done, and it moved well enough that I didn't even realize it was a two hour film!
The bottom line is that the 1968 version was a comedy classic. Perhaps Mel Brookes very best comedy film. But this new version is also a very, very funny film, but it's a different film. This is really a musical comedy with elaborate singing and dancing. And I felt it was carried off beautifully.
I think the people who hated this movie made the mistake of comparing it directly with the classic 1968 version, and naturally they found it lacking. I think you have to judge this as a separate film. And when you do that, it's quite a good musical comedy.
I didn't want to like this movie, but I ended up loving it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
An absolute riot! I laughed the whole way through. Will Ferrell is at his comedic best in this. The music numbers are well choreographed and sung, overall a really fun film. This movie always brings a smile to my face.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
